Capacity Markets for Large Loads under Supply-Chain Constraints

Abstract

Motivated by the rapid growth of data centers, we develop a model to evaluate bringyour-own-capacity (BYOC) mandates and flexibility accreditation in capacity markets for new large loads with shared supply-chain constraints. With efficient pricing, BYOC mainly reallocates procurement between grid-built and self-built capacity and therefore has little welfare effect, while flexibility delivers a modest gain by reducing the effective capacity requirement. Under administrative price caps, mandates can improve static welfare by forcing data centers to internalize the full cost of capacity. The welfare ranking of the two instruments depends on supply-chain stress. At low or moderate stress, only the flexibility instrument raises welfare. Under severe stress with capped prices, the welfare gain from the BYOC obligation can exceed the gross flexibility benefit. The two instruments differ in their effects on a neighboring market: a unilateral BYOC mandate can crowd out its capacity investment, while flexibility produces essentially no spillover at our calibrated benchmark. Finally, applying current capacity non-performance penalties to flexible loads may lead to financial incentives that are too weak to induce truthful flexibility reporting.